Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)

Citation: Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
Parent Document: Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1994-09-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7030384/yesler-terrace-community-counci... ↗

Full Text

1,256 chars

We decline to read such an imperative into Congress’s silence. When section 1437d(k) was enacted, HUD’s own regulations required HUD to provide notice and an opportunity to comment prior to promulgating any substantive rule. See 24 C.F.R. § 10.1. By requiring HUD to conform to the notice-and-eomment rulemaking procedures of APA section 553 when it promulgates expedited grievance procedures and when it identifies the “basic elements of due process,” Congress intended to mandate rulemaking procedures for these actions regardless of whether HUD’s own regulations require notice and comment. It does not follow, however, that Congress intended to forbid HUD to employ rulemaking procedures when determining that a particular state’s procedures met HUD’s due process requirements. At most, Congress’s silence as to these determinations indicates its willingness to let HUD’s own regulations dictate whether it ought to proceed by notiee-and-comment rulemaking. Therefore, as long as section 10.1 exists, HUD must make due process determinations in compliance with its requirements. See Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 1074, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974) (agency must comply with its own procedures when the rights of individuals are at stake). B

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text